Archived: Moorgate Hollow

Moorgate Hollow is a 24 bed care home, providing care to older adults with support and care needs associated with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 23 people living at the home.

Moorgate Hollow is in Rotherham, South Yorkshire. It is in grounds shared with two other homes managed by the same provider, and is within walking distance of the town centre.

At the time of the inspection, the service did not have a registered manager. The previous registered manager had recently left their post. A new manager had been appointed and had submitted an application to become registered. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

During the inspection we observed that staff treated people with warmth, dignity and respect, and people using the service and their relatives praised the care at the home. There was a varied range of activities at the home, which people told us they enjoyed.

Medicines were managed well, and staff had received training in areas relating to safety, including moving and handling, medicines management and safeguarding.

People were offered a choice of nutritious meals and their health in relation to nutrition and hydration was well-monitored.

The provider had appropriate arrangements in place for acting in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and ensured that the Act was adhered to in relation to people who lacked the capacity to make decisions about their health and welfare.

Where people’s needs changed, the provider took action to ensure that their changing needs were assessed and care was adapted accordingly. People’s risk assessments were up to date and addressed all the areas where people were vulnerable to risk.

Quality audits and surveys were used to assess the quality of the service provided, and actions were implemented where any shortfalls were identified.

Moorgate Hollow is a 24 bed care home, providing care to older adults with support and care needs associated with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 23 people living at the home.

Moorgate Hollow is in Rotherham, South Yorkshire. It is in grounds shared with two other homes managed by the same provider, and is within walking distance of the town centre.

At the time of the inspection, the service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff at the home were passionate about their role in relation to upholding and protecting people’s dignity. The home had staff who were designated as dignity champions, and regular sessions were held where staff discussed how to ensure people received care with dignity.

Mealtimes were pleasant experiences in the home, and people told us that they enjoyed the food. We found that staff were knowledgeable about people’s food preferences, and people’s health in relation to nutrition and hydration was monitored effectively.

We found that appropriate steps were taken to ensure that the service was safe. There were up to date risk assessments and these were followed by staff. Staff had received training in safeguarding, and there was appropriate guidance for staff to follow in the event of suspected abuse.

People received care and treatment that met their needs, and care was regularly reviewed to ensure it remained suitable and effective. When people required the attention of external healthcare professionals this was sought quickly, and care plans showed that the guidance of external healthcare professionals was followed by staff.

The provider had failed to make certain, legally required, notifications to the Care Quality Commission, and had not appointed a registered person when the previous one left their role some months earlier.

The provider had not met legal requirements in relation to people giving consent to their care and treatment. Where people lacked the capacity to consent, the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act had not been followed, and the provider had obtained consent instead from people’s relatives. Records within the home showed that where people were deprived of their liberty, this was only done in accordance with the appropriate authorisation.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, discussions with five people using the service, three relatives, and the staff supporting them and looking at records.

If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

The manager told us that several members of staff were dignity champions which ensured people were treated with respect. Relatives we spoke with told us the staff were kind and respectful.

Systems were in place to make sure that the manager and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduces the risks to people and helps the service to continually improve.

The manager told us that she had attended training to ensure she understood her responsibilities to keep people who used the service safe. Safeguarding policies and procedures were in place if required. The manager confirmed that no one living at the home was subject to any restrictions and she understood the requirements under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Equipment was well maintained and serviced regularly therefore not putting people at unnecessary risk. The home was clean and fresh and the manager showed us examples that confirmed good systems were in place to manage the risk of infection.

Is the service effective?

The home had systems in place to ensure people's wishes were respected. We saw completed 'This is me' documents which described people's likes dislikes and wishes. This also gave staff an insight into the person's life history which helped them understand their needs.

One person we spoke with told us that they liked to stay in their room, only coming down to communal areas for meals. They told us staff respected their wishes. The person's relative told us they had looked at several homes before choosing Moorgate Hollow for their relative.

Is the service caring?

The manager had ensured that staff had a good understanding of people's needs as they had completed training on person centred care for people living with dementia. This helped them to understand people's needs.

The manager told us that several members of staff were dignity champions which ensured people were treated with respect.

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. For example, staff ensured they provided activities that were appropriate to the needs of people who used the service.

Is the service responsive?

Relatives we spoke with told us that they felt involved in decisions about their relatives care. They said they were able to give their views on the service and were encouraged to discuss any concerns that they may have had.

We saw that care plans were reviewed regularly and any changes were made to ensure people's needs were met.

Is the service well-led?

The manager had been in post for a number of years and relatives told us they had confidence in her ability to deliver good care. One relative said, 'I feel confident in the manager, she always makes time to discuss any concerns we may have.'

The service has a quality assurance system, records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Staff had a good knowledge of the needs of people who used the service. We spoke with two relatives who confirmed they were satisfied with the care provided at the home. One relative said, 'This was the right place for my relative, we are very pleased and the staff are very good.'

People received the care and treatment from suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work.

Complaints were investigated and responded to in a timely manner. One relative said, 'I have no complaints but if I did have I am confident the manager would deal with it professionally.'

Medication was administered safely to people. People were given appropriate support, to ensure they had taken their medication as prescribed.

We found people experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs or protected their rights. People's care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plans.

We spoke to the relatives of two people, they told us they were happy with the care provided. One relative said 'We found the decision very difficult but we feel mum is in the best place to help keep her safe.' Another person said the staff were very kind and they were respectful to their relative.

Relatives we spoke with told us they had every confidence in the staff to act appropriately if there were any problems about people's safety. They told us that they had not had any reason to make any complaints.